informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Feb 05 2014, 1:47 AM Category: Tyranny/Police State Source: Techdirt Print

Law Enforcement Is Not About Generating Revenue: Speed Trap And Booking Fee Edition

by Tim Cushing

People "ruining" speed traps by warning oncoming drivers usually results in some sort of interdiction by law enforcement. In most cases, what the citizen is doing isn't actually illegal, but that usually doesn't stop the person for being charged with something. A federal court ruled that warning other drivers of hidden cop cars (in this case by flashing your lights) is protected speech. Holding a sign saying "police ahead" is basically the same thing.
The Frisco traffic officer was camped in an unmarked Chevy, trying to catch drivers going above the speed limit, when he noticed something suspicious. Some of the motorists could see him. They waved. He had a feeling that a man named Ron Martin might have had something to do with it. Also aiding his suspicions:

Another officer had given him a heads-up via radio that he'd seen Martin out that day.

Martin is well known among the Frisco traffic cops. He has a history of "holding signs in the center median of traffic," as officer Thomas Mrozinski explained in a police report. His signs carry a simple message: "Police Ahead."

Mrozinski drove eastbound down Eldorado Parkway, Frisco's main artery. Sure enough there was Martin, standing in the median of the busy road. He hoisted a "Police Ahead" sign above his shoulder. "The sign appeared to be self-constructed with a yellow background and lettering in black attached to a wooden stick," Mrozinski writes in his police report.
Because Ron Martin wasn't doing anything necessarily wrong, Officer Mrozinski has to dig deep to find a criminal charge to use against Martin. He fell back on "violating a city ordinance." Martin's sign was confiscated and he was booked on misdemeanor charges.
In Martin's case, the officers charged him with violating Frisco's human sign ordinance, a Class C misdemeanor. The police report doesn't explain how he violated that specific law, and it doesn't seem to apply in this case. Frisco's city code defines human signs as humans who are in costume or otherwise holding or wearing signs for advertising purposes. And though he is a professional sign painter, Martin maintains that he wasn't advertising anything that day in the Eldorado median, just protesting.
Martin claims he was just trying to make the road "safer." Arguably, he was. Drivers were slowing down after reading his sign (and waving to the cop in the unmarked SUV). In that way, his ends were no different than the cop's: discourage speeding. But the cop arresting Martin felt the sign "interfered with enforcement duties." But unless Mrozinski had a quota to fill -- something that has been ruled illegal nearly everywhere -- the lack of speeders meant there was nothing to enforce.

The other argument used to justify hassling people who point out speed traps is that the person's actions prevent the department from collecting needed funds. Ticket revenue may fund police departments to a certain extent, but that's not the reason tickets exist. A police officer's purpose isn't to generate revenue. It's to enforce laws. With tickets, the two coincide, but if police departments rely heavily on tickets and fines for revenue, it becomes a perverse incentive. Police departments may not like seeing a source of revenue drying up thanks to someone holding up a warning sign, but there's little they can do about it. Generating revenue should never be the purpose for any law enforcement action.

Unless, of course, a very dubious circuit court decision declares generating revenue to be a legitimate part of "police business."

In this case, the court found that charging an arrested person a $30 booking fee was perfectly legal, as the PD had every right to earn money. So, anyone being arrested has to pay, whether or not the charges stick. No refunds.
Under Title 5 of its Village Code, the Village of Woodridge charges every arrestee in its custody a $30 booking fee. Indeed, after Woodridge police arrested the plaintiff-appellant for retail theft on January 8, 2011, the Village collected its $30 booking fee from him, without any opportunity to contest that collection either before or after the fee was taken. Mr. Markadonatos is not alone—Woodridge has taken the same $30 fee from each of the large number of people arrested and booked in its vicinity.
According to this decision, it's perfectly fine for the Village of Woodridge to generate revenue this way, either to simply "make ends meet" or turn a profit.
Woodridge’s booking fee clearly passes the rational basis test. In imposing the fee, Woodridge hopes to offset the cost of booking arrestees, or at the very least to collect revenue, either of which is a legitimate goal.
Scott Greenfield (along with the dissenting judge) tears that argument apart:
This is sheer insanity.

In dissent, Judge Hamilton writes what any person whose vision isn’t obscured by his rectum walls already knows:

"This should be a simple case. The village’s 'booking fee' ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. It takes property from all arrestees—the guilty and the innocent alike—without due process of law. The deprivation occurs at the time of arrest, immediately and finally. It occurs based on only the say-so and perhaps even the whim of one arresting officer. By no stretch of the imagination can that be due process of law."

This $30 booking fee, imposed immediately upon arrest because, well, a cop decided to arrest someone (and the donuts are ready, but that’s too snarky to say), is as facially, flagrantly, offensively unconstitutional as it gets. This isn’t a tough call.
This sort of decision will encourage those -- officers and supervisors -- who honestly believe police departments exist to generate revenue. Seeing as anyone being booked is charged $30, the incentive shifts from enforcing the law to booking as many people as possible. The actual charges aren't important as the fee is mandatory and backed by law. Routine infractions become trips "downtown," rather than warnings or tickets.

The same goes for stretching an advertising ordinance to fit some guy warning other drivers about a speed trap. Both people involved have ostensibly the same goal -- a reduction in speeding. Only one of them believes slower drivers means police business has been interfered with. And those defending this officer will often point to the loss of revenue, as if that were the point.

Even a majority of the commenters at Police One News, a law enforcement-oriented site, side with the guy holding the sign. Basically: he's doing our job and he's doing it for free. An empty marked police car will have the same effect as a guy holding a sign on the median. People slow down. But somehow, Officer Mrozinski managed to view it as an illegal act, one that prevented him and his unmarked vehicle from pouncing on speeders and making them pay. Someone took the fun out of his job and that someone needs to learn that you don't screw with cops, even if all he managed to throw at him was a misdemeanor based on an obscure advertising ordinance.

Read the ruling: Booking Fees (PDF)





Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Daytime TV Host Wendy Williams To Women: Trick Your Husband Into Impregnating You, Beat Your 2-Year-Old To Show Her "Who's Boss"
- Town Threatens Jail Time To Citizens Who Feed Stray Cats
- Louisiana Creates Database of Citizens Who Represent "A Risk to the State"
- Cop Fakes Injury To Tour With His Band & Collect Disability Payments
- Bunkerville Was Not the BLM's First Rustler's Roundup
- Man Attacked By Cop For Asking Question
- School Calls Cops On Runaway Special Needs Kid
- North Carolina Deputy Snatches Two Phones, Fails to Snatch Third, as she Handcuffs Man for no Reason









Comments 1 - 3 of 3 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Anonymous

Posted: Feb 05 2014, 6:28 AM

Link
7630 According to Webster, a "Bill of Pains and Penalties" is defined as a legislative act imposing upon those who have previously committed a certain designated act or acts punishment or disability by which the act was not punishable at the time of its commission. Article 1, Clause 9, Section 3 says that "no Bill of Attainder shall be passed". A bill of pains and penalties are the same as a bill of attainder, with the exception being that a bill of attainder carries the death penalty, while a bill of pains and penalties does not. Strictly speaking, a bill of pains and penalties includes a bill of attainder. The clause in the Constitution prohibiting bills of attainder prohibits bills of pains and penalties. This should obviously be applied to Mr. Martin's case. This should also be taken to court and tried by all of the other people that have been forced to pay tis "fee".
Anonymous

Posted: Feb 05 2014, 10:46 AM

Link
75145 I'm somehow having problems with this reasoning, specifically with the line that holding the sign increases safety because everybody slows down.

C'mon. The cop is in unmarked car for a reason. He wants to catch people who are speeding when nobody is watching. Sure, everybody will slow down when there's a cop around, visible or not; that's not the point. The point is to punish the speeders so they don't speed anywhere, not just in this small vicinity of the cop. Yes, after you have paid couple hundred bucks fine, you are not likely to be speeding anywhere, at least for couple of weeks. Those weeks or more are the point of the trap, not the 10 seconds of visibility.

Whether these speed traps and more generally speed limits are always reasonable, and to which degree speed enforcement actually results in increased safety, is separate discussion. But let's not be hypocritical. What the gentleman did was obstructing police work, plain and simple. Maybe this particular work should have been obstructed, maybe 99% of what police do should be obstructed, but obstructed it was, let's not pretend it was anything else.
Golden Dawn

Posted: Feb 06 2014, 10:11 AM

Link
17444 What the gentlemen did by holding up the sign is to warn his fellow citizens of the police presence so they won't get robbed from them. Of course stealing from the citizens your living off of is wonderful police work indeed.


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Cop Swerves His SUV Into Longboarders To Enforce $35 Bylaw Violation - 04/14North Carolina Deputy Snatches Two Phones, Fails to Snatch Third, as she Handcuffs Man for no Reason - 04/22Daytime TV Host Wendy Williams To Women: Trick Your Husband Into Impregnating You, Beat Your 2-Year-Old To Show Her "Who's Boss" - 04/23Louisiana Creates Database of Citizens Who Represent "A Risk to the State" - 04/23Bunkerville Was Not the BLM's First Rustler's Roundup - 04/22Man Attacked By Cop For Asking Question - 04/22With Government Roads, the Customer Is Always Wrong - 04/22School Calls Cops On Runaway Special Needs Kid - 04/22

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat
(more)

 
Top